The newly energized debate about vaccines is a reminder that, when it comes to certain controversies, significant segments of the public refuse to believe the scientific consensus. Why so many people disregard clear and confirmed findings on issues ranging from the spread of measles to the dangers of climate change is a vexing question with alarming implications for the public welfare.

Newly published research provides at least a partial answer. It finds scientific findings that challenge the assumptions of a group you strongly identify with motivate people to derogate the research in online comments.

When informal membership in a group—say, the anti-vaccine movement, or those opposed to genetically modified foods—informs your sense of self, and/or provides a feeling of pride and belonging, a perceived attack on its basic beliefs is grounds for a counterattack. Today, that often means writing nasty, dismissive comments online.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Here is another fact that flies in the face of science. To us it is treachery that in 2013 the US Govt. spent 1.9 trillion dollars on fossil fuel subsidies, and this year it will hit 5.3 trillion!!! Totally insane, yet it is happening with our mostly corrupt and deceitful government in all three branches and state and local level, too. Fracking and leaking methane, spills into rivers and on farmland, 'bomb trains' exploding, and pipelines leaking---this is against what most want and certainly against nature itself, and all life on our only planet."Fossil fuel subsidies to hit $5.3 trillion in 2015, says IMF study Last updated on 19 May 2015, 9:37 amGovernments could cut 20% of carbon emissions at a stroke if they stopped subsidizing oil, gas and coal By Ed King

Subsidies for fossil fuels that cause climate change have soared since 2013, a new study from the International Monetary Fund has revealed.

Oil, gas and coal costs will be subsidized to the tune of US$5.3 trillion a year in 2015. The last time the IMF ran the data it calculated they were worth $1.9 trillion.

Economists say the latest figures are more accurate as they represent the “true” cost of energy, which includes the environmental, health and climate impacts of burning fossil fuels.“Over half of the increase is explained by more refined country-level evidence on the damaging effects of energy consumption on air quality and health,” IMF officials Benedict Clements and Vitor Gaspar wrote in a blog.The figure is larger than the health spending of all the world’s governments combined, a reckoning the pair called “shocking”."- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2015/05/18/fossil-f ... 4b2vf.dpuf

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Johnny, your link does not support your claims. The link discusses the Global subsidies, including the associated costs of health and environmental damage (not a direct subsidy), not the US government as you state.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Exactly what you do on this board to support AGW. But, I agree with you on the vaccine issue. Unlike climate science the vaccine science is backed up with proper, repeatable research that is not hidden from as many people as possible.

The newly energized debate about vaccines is a reminder that, when it comes to certain controversies, significant segments of the public refuse to believe the scientific consensus. Why so many people disregard clear and confirmed findings on issues ranging from the spread of measles to the dangers of climate change is a vexing question with alarming implications for the public welfare.

Newly published research provides at least a partial answer. It finds scientific findings that challenge the assumptions of a group you strongly identify with motivate people to derogate the research in online comments.

When informal membership in a group—say, the anti-vaccine movement, or those opposed to genetically modified foods—informs your sense of self, and/or provides a feeling of pride and belonging, a perceived attack on its basic beliefs is grounds for a counterattack. Today, that often means writing nasty, dismissive comments online.

What is this "newly published research"? Give it to us.

Quote:

When informal membership in a group —

All group membership is informal, until someone calls it formal. Sometimes that's okay though, especially if no belief is involved. If groups are formed around practical concerns then they are constructive and helpful but if they are formed under ideological concerns, they tend to create division which results in conflict and often violence.

Quote:

say, the anti-vaccine movement, or those opposed to genetically modified foods—informs your sense of self, and/or provides a feeling of pride and belonging,

Pfffff. Wayne ...... We already call ourselves by a nationality and often, by a religion. Don't these two major social forces already inform 'sense of self' and 'provide a feeling of pride and belonging'? 4th of July fireworks! BBQ's, flags waving. Didn't you just have that? Did the many celebrations give you any sense of belonging? Didn't they make you feel like you were connected to a great nation, one you should celebrate? Pride and belonging? The same psychology that is rightfully applied to the anti-vaxers and gmo'ers, is also rightfully applied to the nationalists and the religious. So, the question is ... why do we associate ourselves with groups at all?

Seems to me that what needs to be questioned here is the desire to belong. What is that about? (aside from the functional aspect?).

Quote:

a perceived attack on its basic beliefs is grounds for a counterattack. Today, that often means writing nasty, dismissive comments online.

Online ... Yes, it seems we do a lot of communication on line these days.

The newly energized debate about vaccines is a reminder that, when it comes to certain controversies, significant segments of the public refuse to believe the scientific consensus. Why so many people disregard clear and confirmed findings on issues ranging from the spread of measles to the dangers of climate change is a vexing question with alarming implications for the public welfare.

Newly published research provides at least a partial answer. It finds scientific findings that challenge the assumptions of a group you strongly identify with motivate people to derogate the research in online comments.

When informal membership in a group—say, the anti-vaccine movement, or those opposed to genetically modified foods—informs your sense of self, and/or provides a feeling of pride and belonging, a perceived attack on its basic beliefs is grounds for a counterattack. Today, that often means writing nasty, dismissive comments online.

What is this "newly published research"? Give it to us.

If you had followed the link and read the article you would have also found the link to the research in question.

AbstractExperiencing social identity threat from scientific findings can lead people to cognitively devalue the respective findings. Three studies examined whether potentially threatening scientific findings motivate group members to take action against the respective findings by publicly discrediting them on the Web. Results show that strongly (vs. weakly) identified group members (i.e., people who identified as “gamers”) were particularly likely to discredit social identity threatening findings publicly (i.e., studies that found an effect of playing violent video games on aggression). A content analytical evaluation of online comments revealed that social identification specifically predicted critiques of the methodology employed in potentially threatening, but not in non-threatening research (Study 2). Furthermore, when participants were collectively (vs. self-) affirmed, identification did no longer predict discrediting posting behavior (Study 3). These findings contribute to the understanding of the formation of online collective action and add to the burgeoning literature on the question why certain scientific findings sometimes face a broad public opposition.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The article is interesting; the idea of tribal bias is conceptually sound, I think. We can observe tribal bias in everyday interactions. Of course those who identify with and derive self-esteem and a sense of belonging from the scientific community display tribal bias to an equal or sometimes greater degree.

I don't know why the article doesn't mention this.

In my experience, science zealots usually confine their defense to pure science, saying that research to advance our knowledge of how the universe works is a good thing. So it is but knowledge bestows power and if we have no idea of how to use power for good, then the knowledge gained by scientific inquiry becomes dangerous. For some reason devout advocates of the faith of scientism need to distance themselves from applied science with all its weaknesses and failures, from DDT, thalidamide, nuclear weaponry, and even the computer games mentioned in the article which were after all, brought to us by science..

Science is robust with cleverness but feeble in wisdom, is ethically vacuous, passively serving commercial and military employers without ethical discrimination.

Little wonder so many people refuse to bow down in unquestioning acceptance of authoritarian scientism.

The article is interesting; the idea of tribal bias is conceptually sound, I think. We can observe tribal bias in everyday interactions. Of course those who identify with and derive self-esteem and a sense of belonging from the scientific community display tribal bias to an equal or sometimes greater degree.

How is that if the basis for the determination is factual rather than personal opinion?

Quote:

I don't know why the article doesn't mention this.

Probably for the reason above.

Quote:

In my experience, science zealots usually confine their defense to pure science, saying that research to advance our knowledge of how the universe works is a good thing. So it is but knowledge bestows power and if we have no idea of how to use power for good, then the knowledge gained by scientific inquiry becomes dangerous. For some reason devout advocates of the faith of scientism need to distance themselves from applied science with all its weaknesses and failures, from DDT, thalidamide, nuclear weaponry, and even the computer games mentioned in the article which were after all, brought to us by science..

You have gone into a different realm in this diversion. What to do with knowledge is not science but more political or societal in nature.

Quote:

Science is robust with cleverness but feeble in wisdom, is ethically vacuous, passively serving commercial and military employers without ethical discrimination.

It seems there is a bias behind this approach too.

Quote:

Little wonder so many people refuse to bow down in unquestioning acceptance of authoritarian scientism.

Yes, clearly a bias here.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wayne, I don't have time this morning to answer all your points but let me start with:"How is that if the basis for the determination is factual rather than personal opinion?"

To consider any and all determinations of science as unquestionably "factual" is an example of irrational faith rather than objective reason. Here's an example from my own life to give you some idea of what I mean;

As a young man I endured repeated exposure to a chemical called pentachlorophenol. This compound does not occur in nature and was created by chemists (scientists). At that time it had been scientifically determined that this pesticide/preservative could be safely used (with precautions) and released into the environment. From your point of view, as I take it, this was a "fact".

Later it was withdrawn from public use in Canada and many other jurisdictions and now;

It has been globally banned under the Stockholm convention because of the harm it does to people and to life in general. I'm glad it's now banned because it's horrible stuff but it took a lot of years for the scientific "facts" to change and that's unfortunate.

Of course this is just one tiny example out of probably thousands which reveal a patternthat we should recognize.

Here's another example before I have to go:

Some people say that CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels by humans is causing serious climate disruption. Scientific discoveries in the 1700's and developing to the present day have enabled humans to vastly increase their power to alter the environment by harnessing this ancient solar energy. There was great enthusiasm for "the wonders of science" as we devised steam driven pumps to take water out of coal mines, then steam locomotives, steam ships. Later,scientists found ways to refine petroleum so that gasoline and diesel could be used to power transport and excavating equipment. Dams could be built to generate electrical power or, failing that, we just burn coal.

So scientists are now alerting us to the dilemma that science got us into in the first place (similar to the pentachlorophenol example). We shouldn't have invented all those machines and burned all that fuel; oops! it was a mistake! But how do we get the Genie back into the bottle now?

Now, if I was condemning all science as evil that would indeed be bias, but that's not what I'm saying. However, to join the chorus of praise and faith that anything scientific must be unreservedly good is also an irrational bias. Sounds too much like religion to me! No, I'm just saying that the knowledge which science gives us should be applied with a lot more caution and evaluative wisdom than has hitherto been the case.

One relatively new and extremely important branch of science is ecology; a ray of hope!

Wayne, I don't have time this morning to answer all your points but let me start with:"How is that if the basis for the determination is factual rather than personal opinion?"

To consider any and all determinations of science as unquestionably "factual" is an example of irrational faith rather than objective reason. Here's an example from my own life to give you some idea of what I mean;

As a young man I endured repeated exposure to a chemical called pentachlorophenol. This compound does not occur in nature and was created by chemists (scientists). At that time it had been scientifically determined that this pesticide/preservative could be safely used (with precautions) and released into the environment. From your point of view, as I take it, this was a "fact".

Yes, as far as you took it. The safety was only for short term use not long term because there was no time to do such a long term study and those who had paid for the research wanted to get on with the use of their product. That is how business operates.

Quote:

Later it was withdrawn from public use in Canada and many other jurisdictions and now;

Surely not because science had anything to do with it, of course. Science continually looks and uses new evidence to modify existing knowledge.

It has been globally banned under the Stockholm convention because of the harm it does to people and to life in general. I'm glad it's now banned because it's horrible stuff but it took a lot of years for the scientific "facts" to change and that's unfortunate.

It does take time to gather long term data and there is a cost to do so, which no business wants to pay and most governments do not either.

Quote:

Of course this is just one tiny example out of probably thousands which reveal a patternthat we should recognize.

Here's another example before I have to go:

Some people say that CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels by humans is causing serious climate disruption. Scientific discoveries in the 1700's and developing to the present day have enabled humans to vastly increase their power to alter the environment by harnessing this ancient solar energy. There was great enthusiasm for "the wonders of science" as we devised steam driven pumps to take water out of coal mines, then steam locomotives, steam ships. Later,scientists found ways to refine petroleum so that gasoline and diesel could be used to power transport and excavating equipment. Dams could be built to generate electrical power or, failing that, we just burn coal.

Yes, people USED what science discovered as they wanted the short term benefits and it was not until the late 1800s that science was able to examine the effects of that use over time and to determine the cause and effects as they knew them at the time.

Quote:

So scientists are now alerting us to the dilemma that science got us into in the first place (similar to the pentachlorophenol example). We shouldn't have invented all those machines and burned all that fuel; oops! it was a mistake! But how do we get the Genie back into the bottle now?

So science should not give you anything unless they have tested it for all conditions for a few centuries? That would mean that you probably would not be alive now as all of the medical science advancements would still be in study and not practice.

Quote:

Now, if I was condemning all science as evil that would indeed be bias, but that's not what I'm saying. However, to join the chorus of praise and faith that anything scientific must be unreservedly good is also an irrational bias.

Science is neither evil nor good it is knowledge, evidence, and exploration. The USE of what science discovers may be good, bad, or neutral depending on the person or persons involved.

Quote:

Sounds too much like religion to me! No, I'm just saying that the knowledge which science gives us should be applied with a lot more caution and evaluative wisdom than has hitherto been the case.

Exactly, the "knowledge science gives us should be applied with more caution" because science is not involved with how we apply the knowledge WE are.

Quote:

One relatively new and extremely important branch of science is ecology; a ray of hope!

Not according to some. It impacts some people's ability to make a living and they consider that just as bad as your prior examples.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wayne, I don't have time this morning to answer all your points but let me start with:"How is that if the basis for the determination is factual rather than personal opinion?"

To consider any and all determinations of science as unquestionably "factual" is an example of irrational faith rather than objective reason. Here's an example from my own life to give you some idea of what I mean;

As a young man I endured repeated exposure to a chemical called pentachlorophenol. This compound does not occur in nature and was created by chemists (scientists). At that time it had been scientifically determined that this pesticide/preservative could be safely used (with precautions) and released into the environment. From your point of view, as I take it, this was a "fact".

Yes, as far as you took it. The safety was only for short term use not long term because there was no time to do such a long term study and those who had paid for the research wanted to get on with the use of their product. That is how business operates.

Quote:

Later it was withdrawn from public use in Canada and many other jurisdictions and now;

Surely not because science had anything to do with it, of course. Science continually looks and uses new evidence to modify existing knowledge.

It has been globally banned under the Stockholm convention because of the harm it does to people and to life in general. I'm glad it's now banned because it's horrible stuff but it took a lot of years for the scientific "facts" to change and that's unfortunate.

It does take time to gather long term data and there is a cost to do so, which no business wants to pay and most governments do not either.

Quote:

Of course this is just one tiny example out of probably thousands which reveal a patternthat we should recognize.

Here's another example before I have to go:

Some people say that CO2 emissions from burning of fossil fuels by humans is causing serious climate disruption. Scientific discoveries in the 1700's and developing to the present day have enabled humans to vastly increase their power to alter the environment by harnessing this ancient solar energy. There was great enthusiasm for "the wonders of science" as we devised steam driven pumps to take water out of coal mines, then steam locomotives, steam ships. Later,scientists found ways to refine petroleum so that gasoline and diesel could be used to power transport and excavating equipment. Dams could be built to generate electrical power or, failing that, we just burn coal.

Yes, people USED what science discovered as they wanted the short term benefits and it was not until the late 1800s that science was able to examine the effects of that use over time and to determine the cause and effects as they knew them at the time.

Quote:

So scientists are now alerting us to the dilemma that science got us into in the first place (similar to the pentachlorophenol example). We shouldn't have invented all those machines and burned all that fuel; oops! it was a mistake! But how do we get the Genie back into the bottle now?

So science should not give you anything unless they have tested it for all conditions for a few centuries? That would mean that you probably would not be alive now as all of the medical science advancements would still be in study and not practice.

Quote:

Now, if I was condemning all science as evil that would indeed be bias, but that's not what I'm saying. However, to join the chorus of praise and faith that anything scientific must be unreservedly good is also an irrational bias.

Science is neither evil nor good it is knowledge, evidence, and exploration. The USE of what science discovers may be good, bad, or neutral depending on the person or persons involved.

Quote:

Sounds too much like religion to me! No, I'm just saying that the knowledge which science gives us should be applied with a lot more caution and evaluative wisdom than has hitherto been the case.

Exactly, the "knowledge science gives us should be applied with more caution" because science is not involved with how we apply the knowledge WE are.

Quote:

One relatively new and extremely important branch of science is ecology; a ray of hope!

Not according to some. It impacts some people's ability to make a living and they consider that just as bad as your prior examples.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

There is a disease/insect/fungus attacking a widespread species of trees which are considered to be very useful by people. Science develops a treatment which cannot save the trees already impacted but can prevent the spread and allow the remaining population to survive. This treatment must be released into the environment to work which poses a potential unforeseen threat. Science can perform the tests needed to determine the long term safety, but the tree population will be extinct long before that research can be completed. There is a concern the problem can eventually affect other species of trees, so some of those species may be eventually saved in that case. The problem may naturally "burn out" after one or two species are eradicated too.

What do you do? Wait and hope for the best while the testing continues? Do as much testing as possible but use the process before all of the trees in that one species are affected and hope for the best? Let someone else decide so you can blame them if it goes badly?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wayne, you are doing exactly what I suggested that those who identify with the "science tribe" do.

In my comment, I said; "For some reason devout advocates of the faith of scientism need to distance themselves from applied science with all its weaknesses and failures..."

Trying to disassociate some pure, abstract version of science from "what we do with it" is okay as far as it goes. Using this reasoning, the recent space probe to Jupiter is not science but rather "what we do with it". No scientists involved in this project, no science being done here except interpretation of the resulting data, right?.

But then complaining that people have reservations or concerns about unquestioning acceptance of GMO foods or of vaccines destroys your defense completely. If research is done, knowledge gained, papers written and filed away on a shelf somewhere nobody would be worried. It's what is done with this science that concerns people. GMO foods on store shelves, kids lining up for shots. Putting stuff in our bodies.

When my wife was a tiny kid, not yet a year old, a government health worker came to her village and vaccinated the kids against polio. Several kids, including my wife contracted polio immediately after this. She has been seriously disabled all her life not because of "science" but because of how it was done. People have good reason to be wary.

Wayne, you are doing exactly what I suggested that those who identify with the "science tribe" do.

In my comment, I said; "For some reason devout advocates of the faith of scientism need to distance themselves from applied science with all its weaknesses and failures..."

Because science has no control over application of anything. At a basic Geologists have nothing to say about a person taking a stone and beating another person over the head with it. An ambulance can be used to save lives or to run over people killing them, how is science to be responsible for the application of that development?

Quote:

Trying to disassociate some pure, abstract version of science from "what we do with it" is okay as far as it goes. Using this reasoning, the recent space probe to Jupiter is not science but rather "what we do with it". No scientists involved in this project, no science being done here except interpretation of the resulting data, right?.

No there is science involved with the development of the rocket, the communication systems, the control systems, the detectors, the cameras, and yes the interpretation of the data resulting from this science. Unless you live in a cave as a hunter gatherer you are relying on science in some manner. Unless the scientists are given control of your life they have no other say as to how you use or misuse science. Unless you can live without the science which can be misused you are part of the problem and if you want to live as such you need to move into a cave, hunt with only rocks, and eat only what you can gather or hunt in nature.

Quote:

But then complaining that people have reservations or concerns about unquestioning acceptance of GMO foods or of vaccines destroys your defense completely.

Do not accept them. Move to that cave. It may prevent you from contracting the killer diseases those vaccines control. Do not eat anything which has been modified by humans, which includes any hybrid or specialty plants that may pose some risk in the distant future.

Quote:

If research is done, knowledge gained, papers written and filed away on a shelf somewhere nobody would be worried. It's what is done with this science that concerns people. GMO foods on store shelves, kids lining up for shots. Putting stuff in our bodies.

Yes, it would be so much better with smallpox, polio, measles, and a multitude of other diseases culling our population for us.

It was a tragic example of applied science poorly done. Nobody is criticizing Jonas Salk or the science behind the Salk vaccine

Other than you? If he had just published a paper and filed it away where none would be worried about the application we would still be having polio epidemics.

Quote:

Cutter Labs screwed up, that's all.

When my wife was a tiny kid, not yet a year old, a government health worker came to her village and vaccinated the kids against polio. Several kids, including my wife contracted polio immediately after this. She has been seriously disabled all her life not because of "science" but because of how it was done. People have good reason to be wary.

So we should be wary of science because people make mistakes with the application? How many children do NOT have disabilities because of that very same science of which we should be wary? If it is not perfect we should not use it. Forget the greater cost to benefit ratio and concentrate on whatever is not science.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

For some reason devout advocates of the faith of scientism need to distance themselves from applied science with all its weaknesses and failures, from DDT, thalidamide, nuclear weaponry, and even the computer games mentioned in the article which were after all, brought to us by science..

Science is robust with cleverness but feeble in wisdom, is ethically vacuous, passively serving commercial and military employers without ethical discrimination.

Little wonder so many people refuse to bow down in unquestioning acceptance of authoritarian scientism.

We would have no worries if science were not applied....

Tamsuan wrote:

But then complaining that people have reservations or concerns about unquestioning acceptance of GMO foods or of vaccines destroys your defense completely. If research is done, knowledge gained, papers written and filed away on a shelf somewhere nobody would be worried. It's what is done with this science that concerns people. GMO foods on store shelves, kids lining up for shots. Putting stuff in our bodies.

But then application is not the fault of the scientist or science? ....